Delhi

North

CC/34/2019

SHIVANGI GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG BAZAR - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:34/2019

 

Ms. Shivangi Goyal

1187, Shora Kothi,

Clock Tower

Delhi-110007.                                      …                                   Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

Big Bazar

4^th floor,

Tower C, 247 Park,

LBS Marg, Vikhroli (West),

Mumbari-400083.

 

Also at:

Big  Bazaar,

Future Retail Ltd.,

Mayur Vihar Extension Metro Station,

Mayur Vihar Phase-I

New Delhi-110091.                                      …                                    Opposite Party

 

ORDER/

18/01/24

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged in the Complaint,  are that the Complainant purchased  daily use items form the Opposite Party for the amount of Rs.3000/- under the sale of 15 August announced by the OP. The order was delivered on 22.08.2018 by the Opposite Party but after checking the parcel, the complainant found that the order was not delivered fully and immediately informed the Opposite Party through their customer care helpline and lodged  complaint for not receiving the following articles/ items in the delivered parcel-

1. Tata tea premium 1 jar instead of 2 jar,
2. 4 packets of coriander powder,
3. 4 packets of turmeric powder,
4.  1 packet of tata tea premium instead of jar.

 

2.       The Complainant was asked to wait for 3-5 business days for Redressal of grievance and the Complainant waited for a week but didn’t get any type of mail/message.  Thereafter, the complainant’s sister called the customer care of the Opposite party and executive again told her to wait for another 3 business days and assured that the issue will be resolved on priority basis. The Complainant continuously kept on taking the status of the complaint and finally on 30.09.2018, the executive told her to take the gift cards of the same amount and use the same in the Big Bazar as the products are not available but the Complainant insisted for delivery of remaining products and finally, it was agreed that the amount of un-delivered items shall be refunded directly in the bank account. This conversation between the executive and the complainant clearly proves that the opposite party accepted that it didn't deliver the whole order to the complainant. It is also stated that the opposite party always record the calls with them and conversation between the complainant & opposite party executive can be proved by this call recording which is in the custody of the opposite party.

 

3.       It is further alleged that copy of the email exchanged between the parties annexed with the complaint as Ex.CW-1/3 clearly reveals that the complainant shared her mother's bank account details and the identity proof with OP after receiving the mail from the opposite party asking for the same. It clearly shows that the opposite party admitted that it didn't deliver all the items to the complainant due to which they asked the complainant through email to send  account no. and id proof for the refund process.

 

4.       The complainant or her sister continued to take update of the complaint from OP  and they always ask her to wait for some days and they will get back to her but till now the complainant didn't receive any type of call, mail, message from the opposite party or the amount in her mother's bank account. This act of the opposite party clearly shows that the opposite party neither wanted to deliver the remaining products nor refund the money of the undelivered products to the complainant.

 

5.       It has further been stated by the complainant that on 27.01.2019, the complainant's sister again called the customer care of the opposite party for the peacefully delivering the remaining products instead of taking the matter to the court of law, and then she was again assured that  the money will be refunded to her mother's bank account and OP will inform her  over the phone call but till now she didn't receive any type of phone call, mail, message and amount has also not refunded into her mother's bank account. This conduct of the opposite party clearly shows that the opposite party with the malafide intention and gaining the wrongful profit did not deliver the complete order to the complainant. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint has been filed with the prayer for directions to the Opposite Party to refund the amount of undelivered items alongwith interest at the market rate and   Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

 

6.       The Complainant has filed copies of (i) order/ bill (ii) mails sent to the OP (iii) mails received from the OP asking the details of the bank account (iv) bank account statement and ID proof of the Complainant alongwith the complaint.

 

7.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the complainant is baseless and misconceived and may be dismissed. To rebut the allegations, the OP has contended that :-

1.  All the products ordered by the complainant have been delivered to her which is evident from the list of the products and the proof of delivery which are annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1.
2. Story propounded by the complainant regarding short delivery/non delivery of the items is false and fabricated. No assurance was ever extended to the complainant to resolve the issue as alleged or return the amount back in the bank account.
3. No deficiency of service has been committed and OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as alleged.
4. The compensation claimed by the Complainant is exorbitant and excessive and has no nexus with the price of the alleged goods short delivered to the complainant.
5. The products were delivered to the complainant on 22nd August 2018 which is evident from the list of the products sent and proof of delivery filed with the reply.
6. The complainant has lodged a false complaint which was manifest from the fact that all the goods purchased by her were duly delivered.

8.       The complainant has also filed rejoinder refuting the averments of the OP and affirming the allegations levelled in the complaint. Both the parties have filed evidence.

9.       The complainant has also filed written arguments affirming the allegations. The OP neither filed written arguments nor participated in the argument proceedings.

10.     Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence/written arguments put forth by the parties and it has been observed that:-

1. in Para(s) 2(c) to 2 (f) of the complaint, the Complainant has referred the complaints and telephonic conversations made to OPs customer care but the OP has not stated anything about receipt of these complaints in its reply to Para 2(c) to 2 (f). Instead an irrevalant reply has been filed for the sake of filing reply for these Para(s). This raises doubt over the genuineness of the OP’s reply because the Complainant has also filed emails exchanged with the OP regarding incomplete delivery of the order but the OP has not clarified in the reply as to why these emails were not responded by it if the complainant was making a wrong and false complaint.
2. It has also not been clarified by the OP as to why it had sought cancelled cheque and identity proof of the Complainant through email dated 30.09.2018 if false complaint of short delivery was lodged.
3. in case, the OP was fair in dealing and the Complainant was lodging false complaint,  the record of conversation between the complainant and the customer care executive should have been placed on record by the OP to reveal the truth.
4. The OPs has stated that the compensation claim by the Complainant is exorbitant & excessive and has not nexus with the price of the alleged short delivery. It is surprising to note that on one hand, the OP is claiming and trying to prove that the complete order was delivered and on the other hand, he is trying to escape from the compensation claimed by the Complainant. This reveals the guilt conscious of the OP towards the deficiency in its service to the Complainant.
5. the records (two pages) filed by the OP alongwith the reply, to prove its contention that the complete order was supplied but it does not indicate the details of items delivered to the Complainant on POD. It states about delivery of “1 box”. Besides it is also mentioned in the email annexed with the reply of the OP as Annexure-R1, that the “customer is claiming that she did not get four products approx. refund amount of Rs.600/-”. This is sufficient to prove that the OP was in receipt of the complaint but did not admit in the reply and also did not take any action to resolve the complaint of petty amount of Rs.600/- approx. which amount to deficiency of services and unfair trade practice.

11.     In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Besides, the OP has also adopted unfair trade practice by not delivery the complete order which has also caused mental pain and harassment to the complainant.

12.     Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP to refund Rs.546/- (Rupees Five Hundred Forty Six only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 20-08-2018 till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

13.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                        HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

Member                                                                 Member       

                                                   DCDRC-1 (North)                                                     DCDRC-1 (North)

 

 

                                                                                 DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                    President

                                                             DCDRC-1 (North)